Attempting to understand the church position - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

MikeWaters · 11-12-2008, 02:37 AM

that gay marriage is not a political question, it is a moral question.

NOT A POLITICAL QUESTION.

What does that mean? Or rather, what is it that they are trying to say?

I think they are saying "we own marriage." But why would they say that? The recognize and don't recognize a hodge-podge of different relationships internationally with nothing in way of consistency.

So why would they claim complete purview over the issue of marriage?

The best I can do right now, is to be patient.

In Junior High, I was brought in before the assistant principal due to misbehavior in a class. The teacher did not have a teaching certificate, he was an emergency fill-in. The principal asked me to explain my behavior. I said "The teacher is inconsistent." He then reamed me up and down about this teacher coming in with no training, filling an urgent need, trying to do his best, and all I could say was that he was inconsistent.

The church is all over the place on this. It is not consistent. It doesn't even make sense using its own internal logic.

The best I can do is be patient. And realize that as the DOM biography illustrates, decision-making in this church is not always the consensus that people imagine. And that minority voices have in time become majority voices.

Those few of you that are disheartened, stay with this. There are those who will seek to push you out, directly or indirectly. They are not on the Lord's errand.

UtahDan · 11-12-2008, 03:08 AM

I think what the church is trying to say is that it is not a question of party affiliation, which of course the church officially has none.

Otherwise, it is a distinction without a difference. Everyone political initiative is informed by someone's morality. Certainly this one was.

I am curious to know, Mike, what you think a change for the church could look like though. I have thought about it a lot and can't think of how the church could ever surrender a principle that is so fundamental. Or maybe the change you are thinking of is the church staying out of these things? How does a gay marriage ever fit into the plan? I just don't see it which bothers me because its seems cruel that so many in the church's eyes should be celibate and childless. What is the solution?

MikeWaters · 11-12-2008, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I think what the church is trying to say is that it is not a question of party affiliation, which of course the church officially has none.

Otherwise, it is a distinction without a difference. Everyone political initiative is informed by someone's morality. Certainly this one was.

I am curious to know, Mike, what you think a change for the church could look like though. I have thought about it a lot and can't think of how the church could ever surrender a principle that is so fundamental. Or maybe the change you are thinking of is the church staying out of these things? How does a gay marriage ever fit into the plan? I just don't see it which bothers me because its seems cruel that so many in the church's eyes should be celibate and childless. What is the solution?

You can't imagine a future where the church lets the political process re: civil marriage play out without its direct participation?

You don't have much of an imagination.

UtahDan · 11-12-2008, 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

You can't imagine a future where the church lets the political process re: civil marriage play out without its direct participation?

You don't have much of an imagination.

I can imagine that. I just can't imagine a doctrinal change that accommodates gays. What you are taking about almost doesn't matter because gay marriage is here to stay and however you feel about the church's efforts it is like the little dutch boy with its finger in the damn. That is a war we lose in the not distant future. I'm more concerned in the long run about what we do with gays. There may be no answer to that one, but I hope there is.

MikeWaters · 11-12-2008, 03:18 AM

The beauty (or curse) of continuing revelation is that, essentially, nothing is inviolate. Even such topics as whether the God of the Old Testament is Jesus. Or whether Adam is God.

The next revelatory prophet in the church will be an artist of some kind.

UtahDan · 11-12-2008, 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The beauty (or curse) of continuing revelation is that, essentially, nothing is inviolate. Even such topics as whether the God of the Old Testament is Jesus. Or whether Adam is God.

The next revelatory prophet in the church will be an artist of some kind.

So, for example, God could reveal that an eternal marriage could involve any two people, not just man and wife. You are right, anything is possible with continuing revelation. But that was my original point. Shit in one hand and wish in the other one and see which fills up first.

BlueHair · 11-12-2008, 03:34 AM

If (and that's a BIG if) the church changes it's course and allows gays full membership, I think they would to have a couple of decades of little to no comments from leadership about gays. Then, the prophet could say he inquired of the Lord and got an answer to allow gays full membership. They could use the excuse that the old prophets were a product of their time, etc. and the church wasn't ready for the revelation that the Lord was anxious to give.

Tex · 11-12-2008, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The best I can do is be patient. And realize that as the DOM biography illustrates, decision-making in this church is not always the consensus that people imagine. And that minority voices have in time become majority voices.

The other thing the DOM biography has done is provide a lot of false hope to folks who really wish the Lord would just bend his gospel to see things their way.

BlueHair · 11-12-2008, 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

The other thing the DOM biography has done is provide a lot of false hope to folks who really wish the Lord would just bend his gospel to see things their way.

The point is that since God doesn't come down and actually tell them what he wants, each member of the Quorum has to give an opinion. The hope is that the majority of them get it right. They probably do most of the time, but there's no guarantee.

LA Ute · 11-13-2008, 07:49 PM

But you knew that, I suspect.

11-12-2008, 02:37 AM	#1
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	Attempting to understand the church position that gay marriage is not a political question, it is a moral question. NOT A POLITICAL QUESTION. What does that mean? Or rather, what is it that they are trying to say? I think they are saying "we own marriage." But why would they say that? The recognize and don't recognize a hodge-podge of different relationships internationally with nothing in way of consistency. So why would they claim complete purview over the issue of marriage? The best I can do right now, is to be patient. In Junior High, I was brought in before the assistant principal due to misbehavior in a class. The teacher did not have a teaching certificate, he was an emergency fill-in. The principal asked me to explain my behavior. I said "The teacher is inconsistent." He then reamed me up and down about this teacher coming in with no training, filling an urgent need, trying to do his best, and all I could say was that he was inconsistent. The church is all over the place on this. It is not consistent. It doesn't even make sense using its own internal logic. The best I can do is be patient. And realize that as the DOM biography illustrates, decision-making in this church is not always the consensus that people imagine. And that minority voices have in time become majority voices. Those few of you that are disheartened, stay with this. There are those who will seek to push you out, directly or indirectly. They are not on the Lord's errand.

11-12-2008, 03:08 AM	#2
UtahDan Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Bluth Home Posts: 3,877	I think what the church is trying to say is that it is not a question of party affiliation, which of course the church officially has none. Otherwise, it is a distinction without a difference. Everyone political initiative is informed by someone's morality. Certainly this one was. I am curious to know, Mike, what you think a change for the church could look like though. I have thought about it a lot and can't think of how the church could ever surrender a principle that is so fundamental. Or maybe the change you are thinking of is the church staying out of these things? How does a gay marriage ever fit into the plan? I just don't see it which bothers me because its seems cruel that so many in the church's eyes should be celibate and childless. What is the solution? __________________ The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. -Galileo

11-13-2008, 07:49 PM	#10
LA Ute Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 118	You're not trying very hard. But you knew that, I suspect. __________________ "Always do right. It will annoy some people and surprise the rest." --Mark Twain Last edited by LA Ute; 11-13-2008 at 07:49 PM. Reason: typo

11-12-2008, 03:18 AM	#5
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	The beauty (or curse) of continuing revelation is that, essentially, nothing is inviolate. Even such topics as whether the God of the Old Testament is Jesus. Or whether Adam is God. The next revelatory prophet in the church will be an artist of some kind.

11-12-2008, 03:34 AM	#7
BlueHair Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Utah Posts: 1,148	If (and that's a BIG if) the church changes it's course and allows gays full membership, I think they would to have a couple of decades of little to no comments from leadership about gays. Then, the prophet could say he inquired of the Lord and got an answer to allow gays full membership. They could use the excuse that the old prophets were a product of their time, etc. and the church wasn't ready for the revelation that the Lord was anxious to give.